The Respondent had made over 40 claims in the Employment Tribunal over a period of some ten years, all relating to unsuccessful applications for employment. Many of the claims had been withdrawn before they could be determined, in other cases it was said that the claim had been settled, although the terms of settlement were not known. Four claims had been struck out and two cases that proceeded to trial had both been dismissed with orders of costs against the Respondent. More generally, there was evidence to suggest that the Respondent had used the ET process to put pressure on would-be employers to enter into low value settlements.

In this judgment Mrs Justice Eady first reminds herself of the legal framework for granting an RPO noting at [5] that an RPO can be made where the judge is

“satisfied that the Respondent, has: (1) habitually and persistently, and (2) without any reasonable ground, (3) instituted vexatious proceedings or made vexatious applications in any proceedings, whether in an ET or the EAT, and whether against the same person or different persons. If those conditions are not met, no order can be made. If the conditions are met, I have a discretion whether to make an order, I am not obliged to do so.”

She then reviews the claims in question and notes that in many of the claims the available evidence would not support the drawing of an inference of unlawful discrimination: for example, in one case at least the would-be employer had not known of the relevant protected characteristics before deciding not to offer him a position. She therefore grants an indefinite order though reminds the reader that such an order under s33 of the ERA is a filter not a barrier and the respondent would still be able to apply for permission to institute new proceedings.